Literature DB >> 21727289

Personalizing mammography by breast density and other risk factors for breast cancer: analysis of health benefits and cost-effectiveness.

John T Schousboe1, Karla Kerlikowske, Andrew Loh, Steven R Cummings.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend mammography every 1 or 2 years starting at age 40 or 50 years, regardless of individual risk for breast cancer.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of mammography by age, breast density, history of breast biopsy, family history of breast cancer, and screening interval.
DESIGN: Markov microsimulation model. DATA SOURCES: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program, Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, and the medical literature. TARGET POPULATION: U.S. women aged 40 to 49, 50 to 59, 60 to 69, and 70 to 79 years with initial mammography at age 40 years and breast density of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) categories 1 to 4. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: National health payer. INTERVENTION: Mammography annually, biennially, or every 3 to 4 years or no mammography. OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and number of women screened over 10 years to prevent 1 death from breast cancer. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Biennial mammography cost less than $100,000 per QALY gained for women aged 40 to 79 years with BI-RADS category 3 or 4 breast density or aged 50 to 69 years with category 2 density; women aged 60 to 79 years with category 1 density and either a family history of breast cancer or a previous breast biopsy; and all women aged 40 to 79 years with both a family history of breast cancer and a previous breast biopsy, regardless of breast density. Biennial mammography cost less than $50,000 per QALY gained for women aged 40 to 49 years with category 3 or 4 breast density and either a previous breast biopsy or a family history of breast cancer. Annual mammography was not cost-effective for any group, regardless of age or breast density. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Mammography is expensive if the disutility of false-positive mammography results and the costs of detecting nonprogressive and nonlethal invasive cancer are considered. LIMITATION: Results are not applicable to carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.
CONCLUSION: Mammography screening should be personalized on the basis of a woman's age, breast density, history of breast biopsy, family history of breast cancer, and beliefs about the potential benefit and harms of screening. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Eli Lilly, Da Costa Family Foundation for Research in Breast Cancer Prevention of the California Pacific Medical Center, and Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21727289      PMCID: PMC3759993          DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-1-201107050-00003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  38 in total

1.  Mammography screening in Norway: results from the first screening round in four counties and cost-effectiveness of a modeled nationwide screening.

Authors:  H Wang; R Kåresen; A Hervik; S O Thoresen
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 2.506

2.  Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography.

Authors:  Virginia L Ernster; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; William E Barlow; Yingye Zheng; Donald L Weaver; Gary Cutter; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Robert Rosenberg; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Stephen H Taplin; Nicole Urban; Berta M Geller
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2002-10-16       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 3.  Screening mammography: proven benefit, continued controversy.

Authors:  Carol H Lee
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 2.303

4.  NCI remains committed to current mammography guidelines.

Authors:  Andrew C Von Eschenbach
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2002

5.  Screening for breast cancer: recommendations and rationale.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-09-03       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Effect of baseline breast density on breast cancer incidence, stage, mortality, and screening parameters: 25-year follow-up of a Swedish mammographic screening.

Authors:  Sherry Yueh-Hsia Chiu; Stephen Duffy; Amy Ming-Fang Yen; Laszlo Tabár; Robert A Smith; Hsiu-Hsi Chen
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2010-04-20       Impact factor: 4.254

7.  Mortality among women with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in the population-based surveillance, epidemiology and end results program.

Authors:  V L Ernster; J Barclay; K Kerlikowske; H Wilkie; R Ballard-Barbash
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2000-04-10

8.  Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: model estimates of potential benefits and harms.

Authors:  Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Kathleen A Cronin; Stephanie Bailey; Donald A Berry; Harry J de Koning; Gerrit Draisma; Hui Huang; Sandra J Lee; Mark Munsell; Sylvia K Plevritis; Peter Ravdin; Clyde B Schechter; Bronislava Sigal; Michael A Stoto; Natasha K Stout; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; John Venier; Marvin Zelen; Eric J Feuer
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Building a model to determine the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening in France.

Authors:  P Arveux; S Wait; P Schaffer
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Care (Engl)       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 2.520

10.  Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Diana L Miglioretti; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske; Robert Rosenberg; Carolyn M Rutter; Berta M Geller; Linn A Abraham; Steven H Taplin; Mark Dignan; Gary Cutter; Rachel Ballard-Barbash
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2003-02-04       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  109 in total

1.  Recommendations on screening for breast cancer in average-risk women aged 40-74 years.

Authors:  Marcello Tonelli; Sarah Connor Gorber; Michel Joffres; James Dickinson; Harminder Singh; Gabriela Lewin; Richard Birtwhistle; Donna Fitzpatrick-Lewis; Nicole Hodgson; Donna Ciliska; Mary Gauld; Yan Yun Liu
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2011-11-22       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Collaborative Modeling of the Benefits and Harms Associated With Different U.S. Breast Cancer Screening Strategies.

Authors:  Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Natasha K Stout; Clyde B Schechter; Jeroen J van den Broek; Diana L Miglioretti; Martin Krapcho; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Diego Munoz; Sandra J Lee; Donald A Berry; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Oguzhan Alagoz; Karla Kerlikowske; Anna N A Tosteson; Aimee M Near; Amanda Hoeffken; Yaojen Chang; Eveline A Heijnsdijk; Gary Chisholm; Xuelin Huang; Hui Huang; Mehmet Ali Ergun; Ronald Gangnon; Brian L Sprague; Sylvia Plevritis; Eric Feuer; Harry J de Koning; Kathleen A Cronin
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Developing a utility decision framework to evaluate predictive models in breast cancer risk estimation.

Authors:  Yirong Wu; Craig K Abbey; Xianqiao Chen; Jie Liu; David C Page; Oguzhan Alagoz; Peggy Peissig; Adedayo A Onitilo; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2015-08-17

4.  Aggregate cost of mammography screening in the United States: comparison of current practice and advocated guidelines.

Authors:  Cristina O'Donoghue; Martin Eklund; Elissa M Ozanne; Laura J Esserman
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2014-02-04       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Prediction of near-term breast cancer risk based on bilateral mammographic feature asymmetry.

Authors:  Maxine Tan; Bin Zheng; Pandiyarajan Ramalingam; David Gur
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 3.173

6.  Changes in breast cancer risk distribution among Vermont women using screening mammography.

Authors:  Kenyon C Bolton; John L Mace; Pamela M Vacek; Sally D Herschorn; Ted A James; Jeffrey A Tice; Karla Kerlikowske; Berta M Geller; Donald L Weaver; Brian L Sprague
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-06-23       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Secondary prevention at 360°: the important role of diagnostic imaging.

Authors:  Anna Micaela Ciarrapico; Guglielmo Manenti; Chiara Pistolese; Sebastiano Fabiano; Roberto Fiori; Andrea Romagnoli; Gianluigi Sergiacomi; Matteo Stefanini; Giovanni Simonetti
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2015-01-09       Impact factor: 3.469

8.  Breast cancer risk prediction using a clinical risk model and polygenic risk score.

Authors:  Yiwey Shieh; Donglei Hu; Lin Ma; Scott Huntsman; Charlotte C Gard; Jessica W T Leung; Jeffrey A Tice; Celine M Vachon; Steven R Cummings; Karla Kerlikowske; Elad Ziv
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2016-08-26       Impact factor: 4.872

9.  Cost of services provided by the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program.

Authors:  Donatus U Ekwueme; Sujha Subramanian; Justin G Trogdon; Jacqueline W Miller; Janet E Royalty; Chunyu Li; Gery P Guy; Wesley Crouse; Hope Thompson; James G Gardner
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2014-08-15       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  To screen or not to screen older women for breast cancer: a conundrum.

Authors:  Dejana Braithwaite; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Future Oncol       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 3.404

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.